Quote:
|
Originally Posted by warch
Hey, Did anyone else catch the great Charlie Rose discussion on Iraq, Iran, the cease fire, diplomacy and military options with Richard Holbrook and Bill Kristol last night? It was terribly interesting and a discussion that should be much much more public. Charlie let them debate it out. pushed to clarify the rhetoric.
|
Nightline once did this stuff (Nightline now being too much like a Barbara Walter's interview).
Kristol has been calling for Rumsfeld's resignation for well over a year now. Interesting reason why: Rumsfeld is too attached to a failed strategy. Rumsfeld (just like McNamara) is a marvelous thinker. But just like McNamara, he is not able to admit his massive failures. Kristol said that even George Jr is starting to realize this.
The strategic concept that Rumsfeld inherited was flawed - although Kristol will not openly admit this (nor outrightly deny it). Kristol says Rumsfeld's own tactical objectives and how he has engaged those objectives is also flawed - because of Rumsfeld.
Notice troop increases that Kristol calls for. 40,000 troops in Iraq. And yet Holbrook uses lessons of the Balkans to demonstrate how many troops were really needed: 500,000 to 600,000.
Both men agree that the US will never put sufficient troops into Iraq. And both men agree that the consequences of total withdrawal will be disastrous. However these are same reasons for not withdrawing from Vietnam. Just like in Vietnam, the status quo is a formula for defeat - Holbrook repeatedly used the word untenable. And just like in Vietnam, both men agreed (by their silence) that neither has a workable solution outside of more troops.
Holbrook made one other point that I have heard previously - that raised an ear. From two UNPO reports in July:
Quote:
The dangerously neglected looming conflict in and around the northern Iraqi city [Kirkuk] is equal parts street brawl over oil riches; ethnic competition over identity between Kurdish, Turkoman, Arab and Assyrian-Chaldean communities; and titanic clash between two nations, Arab and Kurd.
Within a year, therefore, Kurds will face a basic choice: to press ahead with the constitutional mechanisms over everyone’s resistance and risk violent conflict, or take a step back and seek a negotiated solution.
|
Stepping back to a more strategic perspective, Holbrook noted that every capital from Cairo to New Delhi is only one bomb away from total war. This region has never been this unstable. Although every potential hotspot is equally dangerous, Holbrook noted the one location that has a connection to most potential disputes: Iran.
What is the greatest challenge to America? China. Why? Because of a severe decline of US presence and influence throughout the world. What Holbrook did not say, and yet what should be obvious: China is simply doing what America once did to become so powerful, influential, and so welcome everywhere in the world.
Kristol, a founding member of Project for New American Century that in part defines US policy in terms of securing oil sources at all cost, often surprises by being more pragmatic. Holbrook has always been one of the most interesting strategic thinkers I have even heard. Remember, Holbrook got Milosevic to negotiate himself out of a job. When Wesley Clark tried to continue that task, Clark could not do it. Holbrook had to be recalled from retirement.
I did not realize how much I missed Charlie Rose until his heart attack in Paris - especially with the pathetic staff that replaced Koppel. Only other place to get any such analysis is George Stephanopolis' round table or Russert interviews. The discussion with Holbrook, Kristol, etc are hard to find and essential to understanding the world.
I wish Gingrich had been there. Gingrich is better than Kristol at grasping pragmatic realities. Maybe Gringrich could have defined an exit strategy - or at least define a strategic objective for Iraq. As both Holbrook and Kristol noted by their silence (and they danced around this issue), we don't even have a strategic objective in Iraq which is a first step to defeat - another lesson from Vietnam and Somolia. Another reason why the US (Nato) was so successful in the Balkans.